Marjorie Taylor Greene Says States Should 'Consider Seceding From the Union'

Flying Squid@lemmy.world to politics @lemmy.world – 504 points –
Marjorie Taylor Greene Says States Should 'Consider Seceding From the Union'
rollingstone.com
259

You are viewing a single comment

Let's do a quick thought experiment and say there was an actual legal framework for states to leave the union. How do Republicans think that would go? Under no circumstances would any major city in the south go along with leaving. Republicans states are far more purple than elections would suggest due to voter suppression, election fraud, and gerrymandering. So in reality the confederate areas would just be poor rural areas. Add in the fact that the US holds the keys to all the military equipment and weapons, the confederate areas would turn into a lawless hell scape over night. And without nuclear weapons and no international agreements for defense, I'm sure Mexico and Cuba would love to reclaim some of their lost territory.

I can go on. But the main reason these idiots keep bringing this up is to suggest violence into getting their way. It's not even a viable option to even consider for them. The situation I made is a best case scenario for them to. If they tried to violently leave the union it would be couple million good old boys in trucks up against jets and tanks.

I feel like logistically it would make Brexit look like the Velvet Revolution breakup of Czechoslovakia. Clusterfuck doesn't even begin to describe it. We are sort of stuck with each other like a crabby old married couple that hates each other but they just don't really have any options so they stick together barely speaking except saying fuck you to each other when they pass in the hallway.

Would love to see the Ultimate Epic Battle Simulator between a couple million good old boys in trucks vs like 50 jets and 50 tanks.

All them good ol boys riding Walmart mobility scooters due to spending all their points into Diabeetus.

I just wanna see them fly when the Trebuchet rock hits em.

You wouldn't even need the tanks. The power of long range jets is unimaginable.

Would love to see your face when you consider the US military, which hasn't won a real war in nearly 80 years, trying to occupy an area 10 times the size of Afghanistan. Please just ignore the 100 million gun-toting good old boys in trucks. I am sure they have no idea what guerilla warfare is and won't protect their homes at all. Also, I'm sure none of that military will defect to protect their families.

Those 50 jets and 50 tanks will definitely end the conflict in the first hour.

Um what? Sorry but you are wrong on so many levels it's concerning.

The Afghanistan forces we fought weren't just a military force scratched together from random people off the street. They were at the time battle hardened men in their 30s and 40s, who's leadership was trained and initially train by US advisors to fight off the USSR. They were a strong force fighting in home territory. (the same goes for the VietCong, and Once North Korea was supported by Standing army of China. The Korean War was lost.) so in reality the "good old boys" don't have that advantage.

Secondly, those wars were lost in part due to Logistics. Fighting a war on the other side of the world is vastly different than one in your own back yard. Our opponents knew they just needed to wait us out. That would not happen in the south.

Next, the politics behind this wars was odious from the beginning. The vast majority of Americans didn't support the wars over seas. A war against the south would be very popular in the north and mostly popular in urban areas in the south. Remember, the south wouldn't be trying to leave to create another American Democracy. It would be for a Christian Nationalist Oligarchy. Their goal would be to reinstate slavery, women suffrage, and the genocide of LGBTQ+ people.

And finally, the military is politically "conservative" but in the economic way and not in the I think my small town with two black people is getting too ethnic way. There would be some military people that would defect, but far fewer than it would take to weaken the US military. Individuals with strong racist beliefs wash out very quickly and definitely are not in leadership! There's a reason the military makes sure units are made up of people from all walks of life. Bigotry of any kind doesn't make an effective fighting force.

1 more...

Also remember that most red states are welfare states that need federal funding to just exist and on their own they would be broke and unable to provide basic needs like water and electricity .

Most of those states would collapse at the next hurricane that hits them. Florida had to declare a natural disaster just from 1 hurricane. Hurricane Katrina would leave Louisiana a third world country if not for federal government funds.

It's also like they can't even conceive the notion that most of the left and even a good few liberals are armed and train regularly and also live out in podunk.

Based on international law the states would maintain their current borders, that means the urban areas would come along for the ride (IF under an actual referendum the majority was to vote in favor of separation vs the non democratic exercise that is US elections)

The movement would probably see the creation of a new Union instead of just having a bunch of small new countries, so it would be rich enough to equip itself and create an army (and those voting in favor would probably jump on the occasion to defend their new country).

Separation doesn't happen overnight, you go and fetch support from other countries so you're not left without any allies or international recognition if the vote is in favor (France was ready to recognize Quebec if any of the two referendums had been in favor of independence).

You didn't create a "best case scenario", you just created a scenario that fits your opinion on the subject.

Disclaimer: Am not from the USA, would gladly see it getting split in multiple countries just like I would gladly see Canada split in multiple countries as I think in both cases it would stop some parts of the country from slowing down progress in other parts. Ex.: If Mississippi and its citizens want to live in a third world country so much then so be it, let the rest of the US move forward.

Sorry, but wrong on many points. If the conservative states were ever going to leave the Union it would have to be a quick transition as a longer process ensures that it won't happen.

One: The US as a whole is far more homogeneous than European democracies. It's not like in Europe where you can drive a few hours and find a whole different language and culture. Those asking for a separation are a extreme minority even within their states. Even with them being in power, the moment they actually move towards separation they literally will be murdered in a few days.

Two: during the slow negotiation for separation, red states would be responsible for their debts. States like Mississippi and Kentucky would have to back out of the separation because they'd become Haiti (economically) once the separation was complete.

Three: even if they peacefully negotiated with blue states, violence would break out in urban areas because red states wouldn't be leaving to create their own American style for of democracy. It would be a Christan Nationalist oligarchy. They want this separation to reinstate slavery, women's suffrage, and genicide of all LGBTQ+ individuals. This one is inevitable regardless how the separation goes. But a slow separation just gives those urban areas time to prepare for war.

33 more...
34 more...